Buell Wesley Frazier

[David Josephs]

Let's try and keep it simple...

DSL... there was no bag made by Oswald, no bag taken from the TSBD to the Paines, and no bag taken from the Paines to the TSBD holding ANYTHING...

There was no bag when Oswald came inthe back door, (how many "in other words" are needed?)

Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.

Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.

Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

no bag when Oswald was NOT on the 6th floor... just like the clip that materializes after the fact... in the possession of the DPD...

whether there was a bag in the SE corner on the floor is "their word" - and can be believed or not as there is no physical proof that bag ever existed on the 6th floor.

Oswald is set up as part of a conspiracy to kill JFK and y'all are arguing as to whether the man set up to do so brought a rifle he never owned or had in his possession in a bag he never made

which was too small based on the people who claimed to have seen it to carry the rifle he never owned... and Monty's own partner helps catch Monty in his own lies AND let's us know that

Studebaker's drawing is of the bag UNFOLDED....

Exactly how much MORE evidence is needed here for y'all to understand the bag was created and removed from the TSBD that same day... by the same people who planted the rifle, the shells and who killed JFK...

Day takes the rifle with him... yet leaves this unphotographed "gun carrying case" behind.... as I posted before Hicks does not corroborate Day, and Studebaker does not know he supposedly gave it to a member of his own police department? Seems Mr. Montgomery knows who Studebaker was.... and the wonderful WC does not ask him how he comes to be in the possession of said bag out front of the TSBD... (if I remember correctly, this was HOURS after it was found and as ALYEA states, Day and others came BACK TO THE TSBD to recreate photos... what occurs in these interesting hours between say 1:30 and 4pm on 11/22???

Mr. BALL. You picked it up?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints

Mr. BELIN. All right, what is the fact as to whether or not the penned rectangle on RLS Deposition Exhibit G--does any portion of that rectangle represent the place where the paper was found, assuming that is the southeast corner?

Mr. JOHNSON. It looks like somebody penned that in to show the sack was laying there. That would show it unfolded. (and watch the BELIN CYA kick in)

Mr. BELIN. Well, what you would say then is that the penned portion is actually longer than the sack before it was unfolded, is that what you are saying?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. It shows to be here, if you are taking this as actual size.

Mr. BELIN. Right. Of course, this is photographed at an angle and sometimes this can be inaccurate insofar as perspective. But would this penned in the approximate same distance from the south wall that you saw the sack?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I couldn't say exact distance. All I know is my partner picked that up right out of that corner, and how far it was from the wall in either direction, I don't know.

Mr. BELIN. Would it be somewhere in the location of where the penned in rectangle is on RLS Deposition Exhibit G?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; it would be in this corner, in the southeast corner of the building, and there were some pipes on that side. It would be in that corner--in the southeast corner of that building.

Mr. BELIN. All right, is there anything else you can remember about that sack?

Mr. JOHNSON. No; other than like I said, my partner picked it up and we unfolded it and it appeared to be about the same shape as a rifle case would be. In other words, we made the remark that that is what he probably brought it in.

That is why, the reason we saved it.

ALYEA:

Only recently I saw a picture of Lt. Day with a news still cameraman on the 6th floor. Day was shown pointing to the location where the rifle was found. This was nearly 3:30 or after. It was my understanding that Day and Studebaker had taken the prints, rifle and homemade sack back to police headquarters. I personally would like to know what they were doing back at the scene unless it was to reconstruct shots they had failed to take during the primary investigation. But this evidence had been destroyed and they were forced to create their own version. The photo I have seen of the barricade wasn't even close. I have also seen recently a police photo of the assassin's lair taken from a high angle which indicates that it was shot before the barricade box arrangement was destroyed, but it did not show the barricade itself. This has no bearing on the case other than the public has never seen the original placement. . .

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this is the record I made of the gun when I took it back office. Now, the gun did not leave my possession.

Mr. BELIN. From the time it was found at the School Book Depository Building?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I took the gun myself and retained possession, took it to the office where I dictated----

Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it?

Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent. (this may refer to 11:45 and V. Drain)

Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you?

Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building?

Mr. HICKS. Paper bag?

Mr. BALL. Paper bag.

Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up.

Mr. BALL. Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever see it?

Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I don't believe I did. I don't recall it.

Mr. BALL. I believe that's all, Mr. Hicks.

Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled - it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over.

Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know - I picked it up and dusted it and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of it, and I don't know.

Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.

Mr. BALL. Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures.

[David Lifton]

Let's try and keep it simple...

DSL... there was no bag made by Oswald, no bag taken from the TSBD to the Paines, and no bag taken from the Paines to the TSBD holding ANYTHING...

There was no bag when Oswald came inthe back door, (how many "in other words" are needed?)

Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.

Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.

Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

no bag when Oswald was NOT on the 6th floor... just like the clip that materializes after the fact... in the possession of the DPD...

whether there was a bag in the SE corner on the floor is "their word" - and can be believed or not as there is no physical proof that bag ever existed on the 6th floor.

Oswald is set up as part of a conspiracy to kill JFK and y'all are arguing as to whether the man set up to do so brought a rifle he never owned or had in his possession in a bag he never made

which was too small based on the people who claimed to have seen it to carry the rifle he never owned... and Monty's own partner helps catch Monty in his own lies AND let's us know that

Studebaker's drawing is of the bag UNFOLDED....

Exactly how much MORE evidence is needed here for y'all to understand the bag was created and removed from the TSBD that same day... by the same people who planted the rifle, the shells and who killed JFK...

Day takes the rifle with him... yet leaves this unphotographed "gun carrying case" behind.... as I posted before Hicks does not corroborate Day, and Studebaker does not know he supposedly gave it to a member of his own police department? Seems Mr. Montgomery knows who Studebaker was.... and the wonderful WC does not ask him how he comes to be in the possession of said bag out front of the TSBD... (if I remember correctly, this was HOURS after it was found and as ALYEA states, Day and others came BACK TO THE TSBD to recreate photos... what occurs in these interesting hours between say 1:30 and 4pm on 11/22???

Mr. BALL. You picked it up?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints

Mr. BELIN. All right, what is the fact as to whether or not the penned rectangle on RLS Deposition Exhibit G--does any portion of that rectangle represent the place where the paper was found, assuming that is the southeast corner?

Mr. JOHNSON. It looks like somebody penned that in to show the sack was laying there. That would show it unfolded. (and watch the BELIN CYA kick in)

Mr. BELIN. Well, what you would say then is that the penned portion is actually longer than the sack before it was unfolded, is that what you are saying?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. It shows to be here, if you are taking this as actual size.

Mr. BELIN. Right. Of course, this is photographed at an angle and sometimes this can be inaccurate insofar as perspective. But would this penned in the approximate same distance from the south wall that you saw the sack?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I couldn't say exact distance. All I know is my partner picked that up right out of that corner, and how far it was from the wall in either direction, I don't know.

Mr. BELIN. Would it be somewhere in the location of where the penned in rectangle is on RLS Deposition Exhibit G?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; it would be in this corner, in the southeast corner of the building, and there were some pipes on that side. It would be in that corner--in the southeast corner of that building.

Mr. BELIN. All right, is there anything else you can remember about that sack?

Mr. JOHNSON. No; other than like I said, my partner picked it up and we unfolded it and it appeared to be about the same shape as a rifle case would be. In other words, we made the remark that that is what he probably brought it in.

That is why, the reason we saved it.

ALYEA:

Only recently I saw a picture of Lt. Day with a news still cameraman on the 6th floor. Day was shown pointing to the location where the rifle was found. This was nearly 3:30 or after. It was my understanding that Day and Studebaker had taken the prints, rifle and homemade sack back to police headquarters. I personally would like to know what they were doing back at the scene unless it was to reconstruct shots they had failed to take during the primary investigation. But this evidence had been destroyed and they were forced to create their own version. The photo I have seen of the barricade wasn't even close. I have also seen recently a police photo of the assassin's lair taken from a high angle which indicates that it was shot before the barricade box arrangement was destroyed, but it did not show the barricade itself. This has no bearing on the case other than the public has never seen the original placement. . .

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this is the record I made of the gun when I took it back office. Now, the gun did not leave my possession.

Mr. BELIN. From the time it was found at the School Book Depository Building?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I took the gun myself and retained possession, took it to the office where I dictated----

Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it?

Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent. (this may refer to 11:45 and V. Drain)

Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you?

Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building?

Mr. HICKS. Paper bag?

Mr. BALL. Paper bag.

Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up.

Mr. BALL. Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever see it?

Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I don't believe I did. I don't recall it.

Mr. BALL. I believe that's all, Mr. Hicks.

Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled - it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over.

Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know - I picked it up and dusted it and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of it, and I don't know.

Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.

Mr. BALL. Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures.

David J:

I'm well aware of many of the anomalies connected with the bag. In lectures years ago, I would show the slide of the two detectives exiting the building with that huge bag, and juxtapose it with the photo at the crime scene, showing a dotted line where the bag ought to have been, etc.

And I'm glad you have shared your thoughts on the matter.

But. . . let me ask you this: regarding your hypothesis, how do you account for the testimony of Frazier and his sister?

Pat and I have been debating the length of the bag, and the implications of differing lengths.

You are now claiming there was no bag taken to work at all?

So: how do you account for the testimony of Frazier and his sister?

DSL

4/11/13; 8:05 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

[David Josephs]

Of course you are David... well aware... I include them for those that aren't.

I believe, in order to save themselves from being implicated, arrested, and all the nasties that come with the DPD, FBI etc... little Wesley and his sister and the 30.06 and the car rides for the assassin and the conversations could make things look very bad for them and the family...

Dougherty may be slow but he knows if something is or is not in someone's hands as they walk by... especially a 4 foot paper bag that amazingly stretches from his palm to his armpit... or from his outstretched hand and not quite reach the ground as Linnie Mae tells us.... he says he's sure like 25 times ...

So you want to imagine this bag was just over 2 feet long and was his lunch... a bounty hanging down to the ground as he walked...

that Oswald actually uttered the words "curtain rods"...

why DID he go home thursday night... that question seems much more relevant than how big was the bag... it was as big as they made it, so it would fit a rifle... TWICE. plus a "replica"....

Isn't the lunch on the 6th floor where the weapon, hulls and nest are, and who left it there not 15 minutes before the limo comes by (when he was originally scehduled to pass the window) more relevant than the bag they created on the spot cause how else could Oswald get the rifle there? He'd be dead soon anyway...

Those two belong with Brennen, Bledsoe, Whaley, and a host of others that said what was expected of them...and walked away alive... just like the legion that said what was planned for them to say.. leave the cluesthat needed leaving

and finally those that stuck to their stories.... in the face of it all... not for fame or glory but usually great hardships or worse

David... the people who lied to get thru... survive and reinforce the lie

Few who don't, do....

thanks.

DJ

Edited February 10, 2017 by David Josephs

[David Lifton]

Of course you are David... well aware... I include them for those that aren't.

I believe, in order to save themselves from being implicated, arrested, and all the nasties that come with the DPD, FBI etc... little Wesley and his sister and the 30.06 and the car rides for the assassin and the conversations could make things look very bad for them and the family...

Dougherty may be slow but he knows if something is or is not in someone's hands as they walk by... especially a 4 foot paper bag that amazingly stretches from his palm to his armpit... or from his outstretched hand and not quite reach the ground as Linnie Mae tells us.... he says he's sure like 25 times ...

So you want to imagine this bag was just over 2 feet long and was his lunch... a bounty hanging down to the ground as he walked...

that Oswald actually uttered the words "curtain rods"...

why DID he go home thursday night... that question seems much more relevant than how big was the bag... it was as big as they made it, so it would fit a rifle... TWICE. plus a "replica"....

Isn't the lunch on the 6th floor where the weapon, hulls and nest are, and who left it there not 15 minutes before the limo comes by (when he was originally scehduled to pass the window) more relevant than the bag they created on the spot cause how else could Oswald get the rifle there? He'd be dead soon anyway...

Those two belong with Brennen, Bledsoe, Whaley, and a host of others that said what was expected of them...and walked away alive... just like the legion that said what was planned for them to say.. leave the cluesthat needed leaving

and finally those that stuck to their stories.... in the face of it all... not for fame or glory but usually great hardships or worse

David... the people who lied to get thru... survive and reinforce the lie

Few who don't, do....

thanks.

DJ

DJ:

I cannot follow your answer. At all. (Perhaps some text is missing?)

Could you please simply address the question I asked?

If Oswald did not carry a bag to work (putting aside the issue of its exact length), then how do you explain the testimony of Frazier, and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, whose accounts make it perfectly clear that he did?

DSL

4/11/13; 10 pm PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited April 12, 2013 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

So my question to you is very simply this: would you agree that, unless Oswald was in fact carrying curtain rods, then he was involved in a deception of some sort? (Agreed?)

Let me stress that I’m not asking whether you think Oswald was the assassin, or anything like that. My question is really much more specific, restrictive, and narrow, and directed to Oswald’s state of mind: Was he involved in deception? (And if so, why?)

Your thoughts?

DSL

4/10/13l 9:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, Caliornia

I don't pretend to know what Oswald's role was on the day of the shooting. I'm fairly certain he was not a shooter, but beyond that I can't say. I do think it unlikely he was picked at random, whereby he could have called in sick, got another job, or ate lunch on the sidewalk, and the assassination would still have been a go. This leads me to suspect he was involved in some way, and not entirely truthful in his interviews (assuming, that is, that the reports of these interviews are accurate). If I were writing a novel based on the assassination, in which Oswald was an innocent, and in which I was trying to explain the "curtain rods" story, I might offer that Oswald was asked by his CIA case officer to participate in a black op against the pro-Castro community, and was asked to smuggle an offensive banner into the building that would then be hung from an upstairs window. But that's just one of many possibilities...

Thanks for replying to my post, and offering a hypothesis.

Let me critique your hypothesis: if Oswald brought a politically offensive banner to the building, and if matters actually got to the point where --somehow--it was "hung from an upstairs window," that would cause a small sensation in the Dealey Plaza area, and very likely could cause the motorcade to be diverted and to not drive directly in front of the building. So that's one reason I don't think that would be a satisfactory situation. Of course, another issue would be: how could such a banner be "hung"? Wouldn't more than one man be needed to do that? And, finally, if Oswald was on any floor with such a banner, wouldn't that be evidence that he was simply engaging in a peaceful protest (i.e., and that what he was doing had nothing to do with being an assassin?)

Food for thought.

DSL

4/11/13; 10:10 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

[Greg Parker]

My, aren't you both on your very best behavior now?

What a pair of jokers.

[Pat Speer]

So my question to you is very simply this: would you agree that, unless Oswald was in fact carrying curtain rods, then he was involved in a deception of some sort? (Agreed?)

Let me stress that I’m not asking whether you think Oswald was the assassin, or anything like that. My question is really much more specific, restrictive, and narrow, and directed to Oswald’s state of mind: Was he involved in deception? (And if so, why?)

Your thoughts?

DSL

4/10/13l 9:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, Caliornia

I don't pretend to know what Oswald's role was on the day of the shooting. I'm fairly certain he was not a shooter, but beyond that I can't say. I do think it unlikely he was picked at random, whereby he could have called in sick, got another job, or ate lunch on the sidewalk, and the assassination would still have been a go. This leads me to suspect he was involved in some way, and not entirely truthful in his interviews (assuming, that is, that the reports of these interviews are accurate). If I were writing a novel based on the assassination, in which Oswald was an innocent, and in which I was trying to explain the "curtain rods" story, I might offer that Oswald was asked by his CIA case officer to participate in a black op against the pro-Castro community, and was asked to smuggle an offensive banner into the building that would then be hung from an upstairs window. But that's just one of many possibilities...

Thanks for replying to my post, and offering a hypothesis.

Let me critique your hypothesis: if Oswald brought a politically offensive banner to the building, and if matters actually got to the point where --somehow--it was "hung from an upstairs window," that would cause a small sensation in the Dealey Plaza area, and very likely could cause the motorcade to be diverted and to not drive directly in front of the building. So that's one reason I don't think that would be a satisfactory situation. Of course, another issue would be: how could such a banner be "hung"? Wouldn't more than one man be needed to do that? And, finally, if Oswald was on any floor with such a banner, wouldn't that be evidence that he was simply engaging in a peaceful protest (i.e., and that what he was doing had nothing to do with being an assassin?)

Food for thought.

DSL

4/11/13; 10:10 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

In my scenario, Oswald is not the one unveiling the banner. His job is to smuggle the banner in the building, and then serve as a lookout by the back stairs to make sure the banner-droppers get out. In this scenario, the plotters dumped the paper they told Oswald was a banner when they ran out the back door, and left Oswald's rifle--which they'd removed from the Paine's garage and then used in the assassination--behind, in order to implicate Oswald.

And yes, Oswald was smart enough to figure out what happened as soon as he heard shots had been fired. The plotters planned on this, and had a man in place to shoot him when he ran out the back door. But he crossed them up by going out the front door.

It's just a scenario I dreamt up for possible work of fiction. I don't pretend it's what happened, or is any more likely to be accurate than other scenarios. But it answers a lot of the basic questions, e.g. how could the plotters know Oswald would not be out front at the time of the shooting, how come Oswald brought a bag to work on the day of the shooting, why did Oswald look innocent when Baker approached him, why did Oswald leave the building, etc

[David Josephs]

I believe, in order to save themselves from being implicated, arrested, and all the nasties that come with the DPD, FBI etc... little Wesley and his sister and the 30.06 and the car rides for the assassin and the conversations could make things look very bad for them and the family... (EDIT: They were told what to say and they said it... wrote it, agreed to perpetrating the lie to avoid the unpleasantness that goes with telling the truth... Wesley could simply not say there was no bag.... and his sister only gives the story some credibility...)

Dougherty may be slow but he knows if something is or is not in someone's hands as they walk by... especially a 4 foot paper bag that amazingly stretches from his palm to his armpit... or from his outstretched hand and not quite reach the ground as Linnie Mae tells us.... he says he's sure like 25 times ...

DJ:

I cannot follow your answer. At all. (Perhaps some text is missing?)

Could you please simply address the question I asked?

If Oswald did not carry a bag to work (putting aside the issue of its exact length), then how do you explain the testimony of Frazier, and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, whose accounts make it perfectly clear that he did?

DSL

4/11/13; 10 pm PDT

Los Angeles, California

Sorry DSL, I must have gotten lost in my tangent.... I made my edit/add in bold... but I had thought you'd get the sense of my answer with the rest of the post...

They, like Bledsoe, Brennen, Whaley and others told the DPD/FBI what they needed to hear...

Can you offer any witness testimony that supports Oswald's guilt that rings true to you? I am very interested in your opinion on that....

Their story related to the bag makes no sense if it was anything other than the rifle... the way they describe it, there was something long and solid in that bag... there really is no other inference to be made...

The lengths are all approximates... although Randle claims she measured it after she had folded it up to how he was supposedly carrying it.... after being shown ce364 http://www.history-m...Vol16_0492b.htm

She is shown a replica of the bag and USING THAT is asked to reproduce what she saw... NOT that the bag was only 28.5" in length... but that the 42" bag was folded down... she simply over folded the relica given her... Wesley's "just over 2 feet" was again, an approximation of a non-existent bag... and was easily brushed aside... once the "ACTUAL" bag was now in evidence...

Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.

Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.

Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

David... two caskets, three entries... a package with yet another paper bag and bizarre address label was mailed to Oswald... and you have trouble with there being a paper bag made at some point to implicate Oswald? That the Chain of Possession of said bag is - yet again - dubious at best.... and yet this bag is supposed to have contained the stock, the barrel, the clip, 4 rounds... is not wrapped in anything within the bag and leaves no traces, no rips, tears, oil, scuffs etc that would suggest this bag (made that afternoon) ever had rifle parts in it... no one looks inside (unless we believe Johnson) Day does not process the inside and finds no prints outside... it is wisked away that evening by Drain with most if not all the critical evidence.

That there was a bag in that corner at any time (ie: was the bag described and drawn into the SE corner the same as the bag Monty is carrying? was it created before and planted there (if so why no photos?) or created after and taken by MONTY).. is the question that needs follow-up... Day's report, written January 8, 1964 makes no mention of a clip or a paper Bag... yet is incredibly detailed regarding the hulls and rifle... he also let's slip that Day returns with the Crime Scene team including Hicks... (as ALYEA STATES) at about 3pm and stays for hours.... he does not return to his desk until 7pm - do you know when the MONTY photos were taken?

http://jfk.ci.dallas...26/2616-001.gif

http://jfk.ci.dallas...26/2616-002.gif

To conclude... Welsey and his sister lied... both of their handwritten statements are unsigned and undated... His states his mother made a comment about Lee, and then he leaves to join Oswald... HERS states she watches Oswald walk up, opens the garage door and sees him place the bag in the car... this does not occur according to his statements... to me the evolution of their statements to conform with the official story is obvious... their stories dont work with each other or any of the evidence presented by anyone outside of he and his sister. Any ideas on why Wesley's mother was not questioned - why she is not asked what he was carrying or what he was wearing?

about 7:15 AM, me, my mother, and my two little neices [sic] were at the table, and my sister was at the sink. My mother looked up and said, "Who is that looking in the window?" I looked up and said, "That's Lee." I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods

and the FBI report on Linnie Mae:

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

[David Lifton]

I believe, in order to save themselves from being implicated, arrested, and all the nasties that come with the DPD, FBI etc... little Wesley and his sister and the 30.06 and the car rides for the assassin and the conversations could make things look very bad for them and the family... (EDIT: They were told what to say and they said it... wrote it, agreed to perpetrating the lie to avoid the unpleasantness that goes with telling the truth... Wesley could simply not say there was no bag.... and his sister only gives the story some credibility...)

Dougherty may be slow but he knows if something is or is not in someone's hands as they walk by... especially a 4 foot paper bag that amazingly stretches from his palm to his armpit... or from his outstretched hand and not quite reach the ground as Linnie Mae tells us.... he says he's sure like 25 times ...

DJ:

I cannot follow your answer. At all. (Perhaps some text is missing?)

Could you please simply address the question I asked?

If Oswald did not carry a bag to work (putting aside the issue of its exact length), then how do you explain the testimony of Frazier, and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, whose accounts make it perfectly clear that he did?

DSL

4/11/13; 10 pm PDT

Los Angeles, California

Sorry DSL, I must have gotten lost in my tangent.... I made my edit/add in bold... but I had thought you'd get the sense of my answer with the rest of the post...

They, like Bledsoe, Brennen, Whaley and others told the DPD/FBI what they needed to hear...

Can you offer any witness testimony that supports Oswald's guilt that rings true to you? I am very interested in your opinion on that....

Their story related to the bag makes no sense if it was anything other than the rifle... the way they describe it, there was something long and solid in that bag... there really is no other inference to be made...

The lengths are all approximates... although Randle claims she measured it after she had folded it up to how he was supposedly carrying it.... after being shown ce364 http://www.history-m...Vol16_0492b.htm

She is shown a replica of the bag and USING THAT is asked to reproduce what she saw... NOT that the bag was only 28.5" in length... but that the 42" bag was folded down... she simply over folded the relica given her... Wesley's "just over 2 feet" was again, an approximation of a non-existent bag... and was easily brushed aside... once the "ACTUAL" bag was now in evidence...

Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.

Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.

Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

David... two caskets, three entries... a package with yet another paper bag and bizarre address label was mailed to Oswald... and you have trouble with there being a paper bag made at some point to implicate Oswald? That the Chain of Possession of said bag is - yet again - dubious at best.... and yet this bag is supposed to have contained the stock, the barrel, the clip, 4 rounds... is not wrapped in anything within the bag and leaves no traces, no rips, tears, oil, scuffs etc that would suggest this bag (made that afternoon) ever had rifle parts in it... no one looks inside (unless we believe Johnson) Day does not process the inside and finds no prints outside... it is wisked away that evening by Drain with most if not all the critical evidence.

That there was a bag in that corner at any time (ie: was the bag described and drawn into the SE corner the same as the bag Monty is carrying? was it created before and planted there (if so why no photos?) or created after and taken by MONTY).. is the question that needs follow-up... Day's report, written January 8, 1964 makes no mention of a clip or a paper Bag... yet is incredibly detailed regarding the hulls and rifle... he also let's slip that Day returns with the Crime Scene team including Hicks... (as ALYEA STATES) at about 3pm and stays for hours.... he does not return to his desk until 7pm - do you know when the MONTY photos were taken?

http://jfk.ci.dallas...26/2616-001.gif

http://jfk.ci.dallas...26/2616-002.gif

To conclude... Welsey and his sister lied... both of their handwritten statements are unsigned and undated... His states his mother made a comment about Lee, and then he leaves to join Oswald... HERS states she watches Oswald walk up, opens the garage door and sees him place the bag in the car... this does not occur according to his statements... to me the evolution of their statements to conform with the official story is obvious... their stories dont work with each other or any of the evidence presented by anyone outside of he and his sister. Any ideas on why Wesley's mother was not questioned - why she is not asked what he was carrying or what he was wearing?

about 7:15 AM, me, my mother, and my two little neices [sic] were at the table, and my sister was at the sink. My mother looked up and said, "Who is that looking in the window?" I looked up and said, "That's Lee." I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods

and the FBI report on Linnie Mae:

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

David J:

Your post contains a lot of data that addresses the legitimacy of the bag --let's call it the "found bag"--as evidence. I'm aware of that--or at least, most of it--but that was not my question.

My question is not about the "found bag". Nor is my question about when the rather long bag brought fro the TSBD was manufactured; or why that rather long bag does not appear --near the so-called sniper's nest--in any of the DPD crime scene photographs.

So let's set those issues aside, please, and focus on the question that I posed.

My question is: how do you explain Frazier's statements that Lee placed a bag with him when he took him to work that morning, and his sister's statement that she witnessed Lee approaching the house with that bag.

Setting aside the issue of "bag length," these statements were made immediately --by which I mean that night.

Linnie Mae Randle's sworn affidavit is on page 53 of the Dallas Police File (WCE 2003).

Frazier's sworn affidavit is on page 25.

Randle's statement reads, in part: "I saw Lee walk up my driveway carrying a long brown package. I saw him put it in Wesley's car."

Frazier's statement reads, in part: "Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2 feet long. I asked Lee what was in the sack and he said "curtain rods" and I remembered what he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods." etc.

The DPD detectives report of Rose, Adamcik, Stovall reports these same events, giving the time as 9 pm. (Dallas Police File, CE 2003, p. 167). It also states "Buell Wesley Frazier took a polygraph test and the test showed he was telling the truth. This test was given between 11:20 PM on the 22nd and 12:10 AM on the 23rd of November. (WCE 2003, p. 167).

So, I return to my original question: How do you explain these statements by Frazier and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, if Lee Oswald did not carry something in a package to work that morning?

As I understand your position, there was no package. --i.e. Lee did not bring a package with him to work that morning. That all that is a fiction. That there was no bag.

These witnesses stated quite the opposite--that there was.

How do you explain their statements--made that evening (Fri., 11/22) at about 9 PM?

DSL

4/12/13; 3:40 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited April 12, 2013 by David Lifton

[David Josephs]

One last time David... and please, reread the bold text in my other replies to you... I've said the same thing now three times....

That I add in other supporting evidence for WHY I believe so is intended to HELP you understand my position.

THERE WAS NO BAG IN OSWALD'S POSSESSION OR IN FRAZIER'S CAR,

They were told what was needed and the BAG was incorporated into their statements..

THEY LIED in order to assist the DPD/FBI... as a result they were left alone.

David - is it REALLY a surprise that some witnesses lied to aid the DPD and/or keep themselves out of trouble...

Does it not make sense that if the Frazier polygraph was so "conclusive" that they wouldn't include a detailed report of said polygraph as evidence in support of our man Wesley, as opposed to , "Trust us, he told the truth".

or the actual polygraph transcripts themselves?

We come to find the actual polygraph test was dubious at best... Lewis never produced a report... it lasted less than 50 minutes, and in that Stovall report you speak of the test "showed conclusively" he told the truth... we both know that those tests were NEVER considered "conclusive"... only "indicative" of either truthfulness or not...

Here is the last page of the Stoval report

http://www.history-m...Vol21_0313b.htm

Greg Parker posted a very good examination of their questioning and the entire Randle/Frazier situation... it is very complete and provides more than enough "reasonable doubt" in a case riddled with doubt, that the BAG part of their story was a fabrication... you know, mix in a little truth with the lies... . http://reopenkennedy...and-bill-randle

Sorry David... there was no bag... and I'm as sure of that as you are of Boyijean's report or Dennis David's testimony...

[David Lifton]

One last time David... and please, reread the bold text in my other replies to you... I've said the same thing now three times....

That I add in other supporting evidence for WHY I believe so is intended to HELP you understand my position.

THERE WAS NO BAG IN OSWALD'S POSSESSION OR IN FRAZIER'S CAR,

They were told what was needed and the BAG was incorporated into their statements..

THEY LIED in order to assist the DPD/FBI... as a result they were left alone.

David - is it REALLY a surprise that some witnesses lied to aid the DPD and/or keep themselves out of trouble...

Does it not make sense that if the Frazier polygraph was so "conclusive" that they wouldn't include a detailed report of said polygraph as evidence in support of our man Wesley, as opposed to , "Trust us, he told the truth".

or the actual polygraph transcripts themselves?

We come to find the actual polygraph test was dubious at best... Lewis never produced a report... it lasted less than 50 minutes, and in that Stovall report you speak of the test "showed conclusively" he told the truth... we both know that those tests were NEVER considered "conclusive"... only "indicative" of either truthfulness or not...

Here is the last page of the Stoval report

http://www.history-m...Vol21_0313b.htm

Greg Parker posted a very good examination of their questioning and the entire Randle/Frazier situation... it is very complete and provides more than enough "reasonable doubt" in a case riddled with doubt, that the BAG part of their story was a fabrication... you know, mix in a little truth with the lies... . http://reopenkennedy...and-bill-randle

Sorry David... there was no bag... and I'm as sure of that as you are of Boyijean's report or Dennis David's testimony...

David J:

Well, I guess we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on this one.

Impeaching the bag, as evidence (or at least, attempting to do that) is not the same as impeaching the accounts of Frazier and Randle.

Repeatedly asserting that “there was no bag” is not the same as providing evidence there was no bag.

In sum, in response to my question, what you have done is simply assert your opinion that there was no bag in the car--as if it were a fact.

You are entitled to your opinion. But where is the evidence for that opinion? Upon what is it based?

Apparently, its based on another hypothesis you are (implicitly, at least) propounding: that the accounts of Frazier and Randle can be dismissed because they are fabrications; that they were simply pressured into going along with the authorities, who had a bag, and then needed a story to validate the bag, to make it part of some larger "story" of how the rifle got to the building.

Essentially, that’s what you seem to be saying. And its very close to circular reasoning. The Dallas Police had a bag, and so then (and in your opinion) they pressured these two witnesses into fabricating a story about the bag. Asked to present evidence why they testified as they did, you simply assert "there was no bag."

Sorry, but that won’t work. That’s not evidence at all. That’s simply your hypothesis, your conjecture.

I asked you for an explanation as to why these two people said what they did, and later testified as they did.

You have not provided a satisfactory answer to my question.

Remember the old saying: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that applies here. In spades.

As I’ve said, I would not be surprised if it was the case that Linnie Mae Randle changed the length of the bag –and that is a different matter, an entirely different matter.

But you have presented no evidence that Randle or her brother, Buell Frazier, simply invented the story that Oswald carried a package to work that day on Friday evening; and then swore to it under oath, passed a lie detector test about it; stated it in numerous press interviews, and then repeated it under oath before the Warren Commission.

Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt.

Based on the earliest statements of Randle and Frazier, Oswald indeed carried a package to work that day.

I don't see any evidence that they were pressured to invent such a story.

Unless you can come up with evidence that they contrived this story on the evening of November 22—not your opinion that they did so, not your sincere belief that they “must have” done so—but actual evidence, I don’t think there is any validity to this proposition..

The fact that Oswald carried a package to work doesn’t tell us what was in it; and it doesn’t make him an assassin. I want to make those points very clear.

But your hypothesis--which is really just an opinion which you repeatedly assert as if it were a fact--lacks an evidentiary foundation. And so I, for one, reject it.

DSL

4/12/13; 7:40 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited April 13, 2013 by David Lifton

[David Josephs]

David...

I will have to disagree with you that I have not provided support for their NOT being a bag...

There is simply no reliable evidence that the bag was ever in Frazier's car... (Wesley and Randle's word AFTER hours of questions and BEFORE the AFFIDAVITS)

No reliable corroboration that Oswald even came to the Randle house at all... (why not get an affidavit from Wesley's mother who he says asks "who was at the window"... and is told "Lee" - yet no one corroborates THAT story either...)

No one at the Paine residence can support the BAG either coming TO the house or LEAVING it - with or without a rifle

There is no bag with Oswald as he is seen eating lunch... (Wesley tells us he did NOT take lunch that day)

Finally... unless you know of some special type of grocery bags, the bag they describe does not sound "standard" as one would find at the Paine house to put his lunch in...

The BAG on the 6th floor is NEVER shown on the 6th floor - only the small lunch bag of Williams

The BAG in Monty's hands cannot be the one Wesley or Randle describes... that's a given... so THAT BAG must have been created at some point.

BILL RANDLE is involved in a very interesting way... (which may be the reason for the CYA)

No one at the TSBD testifies to seeing Oswald carrying a 2 foot bag*

*Edward Shields tells us that his friends: Williams, Jarman, Norman, Givens (who is incorrectly identified as GIBBONS in his HSCA testimony) told him that Owald was dropped of near the building... that he, Shields did not see Oswald walking up... yet he also stated that he THOUGHT Oswald rode with Frazier every day... yet we know this was only on Monday morning's and Friday nights... He also says that THEY SAID Oswald was carrying a long package...

Yet when we get to the OFFICIAL RECORD... how would these men know no to include this sighting? That Oswald HAD to get out of the car with Welsey according to Wesley... AND that Oswald did NOT take his lunch that day... yet not one of these men give any indication that Shield's testimony is correct.

JIM - does your sourcing of this lead provide any better corroboration?

Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.

Mr. BALL - He did?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.

Mr. BALL - But every other day he brought a lunch?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right, when he rode with me.

(Note: Oswald only rode with Wesley Monday mornings and Fridays... on all other days he stayed in Oak Cliff and did his own lunch thing... on Monday's, coming from the Paines, maybe his wife made his lunch... according to Welsey, the bag contained curtain rods as told to him by Oswald - yet another bit of bag evidence that is completely uncorroborated)

Mr. BALL - Now on November 22, what time did you get to work?

Mr. JARMAN - About 5 minutes after 8.

Mr. BALL - Was Oswald there when you got there?

Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Where did you see him the first time?

Mr. JARMAN - Well, he was on the first floor filling orders.

Mr. BALL. Did you see Lee Oswald when you got to work?

Mr. NORMAN. No; I don't recall seeing him when I got to work.

Mr. BALL. Did you remember seeing him at any time that morning?

Mr. NORMAN. Yes; around about 10 or 10:15, somewhere in the neighborhood of that.

(Norman is asked, in his HSCA testimony, if he remembers anyone asking Wesley "something about where his rider was..." ...

Norman replies, "No, I don't remember anybody")

Mr. BALL. Now, this morning, did you see Oswald on the floor at any time?

Mr. WILLIAMS. This morning of November 22d?

Mr. BALL. 22d.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The morning of November 22d Oswald was on the floor. The only time I saw him that morning was a little after eight, after I had started working. As usual, he was walking around with a clipboard in his hands, I believe he was.

Mr. BALL. That is on the first floor?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. He had a clipboard in his hand.

Mr. BALL. That is the only time you saw him that morning?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is the only time I saw him that morning. I saw him again between 11:30 and maybe 10 until 12:00.

Mr. BELIN. Friday; that is the day the President came by.

Mr. GIVENS. Yes, I saw him that day.

Mr. BELIN. Where did you see him first?

Mr. GIVENS. Well, I first saw him on the first floor.

Mr BELIN. About what time was that?

Mr. GIVENS. Well, about 8:30.

So all we really have regarding Shields is that HE CLAIMS that one of his group (Williams, Arce, Norman, Jarman, Givens - he specifically names JARMAN) told him, "he let him out at the building" yet not one of these men retells that portion of the story, in fact, they all state they did not see him until in the TSBD... any of these men in the domino room at the time could have easily seen Oswald let off, come up the stairs and into the back door...

YET... not a single one says so...

"They (Shield's source) asked him (Oswald) what it (the long package) was and he told us it was a venetian blind he was going to have cleaned" -Shields.

(note - Montgomery's oral history states he had a VENETIAN BLIND inthe bag which was holding it up"):

From GMACK:

The Museum never got an oral history from Sawyer, unfortunately, but here’s what L.D. Montgomery said on 11-25-2002

L.D.: It must just have been a little… it seems like that paper, seems like it was a little stiff paper. I’m trying to think and trying to remember. Was there anything in it?

Gary: That was my next question.

L.D.: That’s what I was thinking. Was there a little piece of that white Venetian blind that was in there? That might’ve been what was holding it up. Because you know, he told ‘em that was a Venetian blind, but he had the rifle in there. But he may have had a little piece of that… you know, a long piece of that Venetian blind in there. That’s what I was thinking. Maybe that’s what it was that was in there, and that’s why it held that up.

Gary: You don’t remember looking inside?

L.D.: (nodding) Oh yeah, I remember looking inside. That’s why I was thinking. I was thinking that I remembered now that there was a piece of that in there. Uh-huh.

Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.

Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.

Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.

Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.

Mr. BALL - About what time of day was that?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - That was 8 o'clock.

[David Lifton]

David...

I will have to disagree with you that I have not provided support for their NOT being a bag...

There is simply no reliable evidence that the bag was ever in Frazier's car... (Wesley and Randle's word AFTER hours of questions and BEFORE the AFFIDAVITS)

No reliable corroboration that Oswald even came to the Randle house at all... (why not get an affidavit from Wesley's mother who he says asks "who was at the window"... and is told "Lee" - yet no one corroborates THAT story either...)

No one at the Paine residence can support the BAG either coming TO the house or LEAVING it - with or without a rifle

There is no bag with Oswald as he is seen eating lunch... (Wesley tells us he did NOT take lunch that day)

Finally... unless you know of some special type of grocery bags, the bag they describe does not sound "standard" as one would find at the Paine house to put his lunch in...

The BAG on the 6th floor is NEVER shown on the 6th floor - only the small lunch bag of Williams

The BAG in Monty's hands cannot be the one Wesley or Randle describes... that's a given... so THAT BAG must have been created at some point.

BILL RANDLE is involved in a very interesting way... (which may be the reason for the CYA)

No one at the TSBD testifies to seeing Oswald carrying a 2 foot bag*

*Edward Shields tells us that his friends: Williams, Jarman, Norman, Givens (who is incorrectly identified as GIBBONS in his HSCA testimony) told him that Owald was dropped of near the building... that he, Shields did not see Oswald walking up... yet he also stated that he THOUGHT Oswald rode with Frazier every day... yet we know this was only on Monday morning's and Friday nights... He also says that THEY SAID Oswald was carrying a long package...

Yet when we get to the OFFICIAL RECORD... how would these men know no to include this sighting? That Oswald HAD to get out of the car with Welsey according to Wesley... AND that Oswald did NOT take his lunch that day... yet not one of these men give any indication that Shield's testimony is correct.

JIM - does your sourcing of this lead provide any better corroboration?

Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.

Mr. BALL - He did?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.

Mr. BALL - But every other day he brought a lunch?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right, when he rode with me.

(Note: Oswald only rode with Wesley Monday mornings and Fridays... on all other days he stayed in Oak Cliff and did his own lunch thing... on Monday's, coming from the Paines, maybe his wife made his lunch... according to Welsey, the bag contained curtain rods as told to him by Oswald - yet another bit of bag evidence that is completely uncorroborated)

Mr. BALL - Now on November 22, what time did you get to work?

Mr. JARMAN - About 5 minutes after 8.

Mr. BALL - Was Oswald there when you got there?

Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Where did you see him the first time?

Mr. JARMAN - Well, he was on the first floor filling orders.

Mr. BALL. Did you see Lee Oswald when you got to work?

Mr. NORMAN. No; I don't recall seeing him when I got to work.

Mr. BALL. Did you remember seeing him at any time that morning?

Mr. NORMAN. Yes; around about 10 or 10:15, somewhere in the neighborhood of that.

(Norman is asked, in his HSCA testimony, if he remembers anyone asking Wesley "something about where his rider was..." ...

Norman replies, "No, I don't remember anybody")

Mr. BALL. Now, this morning, did you see Oswald on the floor at any time?

Mr. WILLIAMS. This morning of November 22d?

Mr. BALL. 22d.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The morning of November 22d Oswald was on the floor. The only time I saw him that morning was a little after eight, after I had started working. As usual, he was walking around with a clipboard in his hands, I believe he was.

Mr. BALL. That is on the first floor?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. He had a clipboard in his hand.

Mr. BALL. That is the only time you saw him that morning?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is the only time I saw him that morning. I saw him again between 11:30 and maybe 10 until 12:00.

Mr. BELIN. Friday; that is the day the President came by.

Mr. GIVENS. Yes, I saw him that day.

Mr. BELIN. Where did you see him first?

Mr. GIVENS. Well, I first saw him on the first floor.

Mr BELIN. About what time was that?

Mr. GIVENS. Well, about 8:30.

So all we really have regarding Shields is that HE CLAIMS that one of his group (Williams, Arce, Norman, Jarman, Givens - he specifically names JARMAN) told him, "he let him out at the building" yet not one of these men retells that portion of the story, in fact, they all state they did not see him until in the TSBD... any of these men in the domino room at the time could have easily seen Oswald let off, come up the stairs and into the back door...

YET... not a single one says so...

"They (Shield's source) asked him (Oswald) what it (the long package) was and he told us it was a venetian blind he was going to have cleaned" -Shields.

(note - Montgomery's oral history states he had a VENETIAN BLIND inthe bag which was holding it up"):

From GMACK:

The Museum never got an oral history from Sawyer, unfortunately, but here’s what L.D. Montgomery said on 11-25-2002

L.D.: It must just have been a little… it seems like that paper, seems like it was a little stiff paper. I’m trying to think and trying to remember. Was there anything in it?

Gary: That was my next question.

L.D.: That’s what I was thinking. Was there a little piece of that white Venetian blind that was in there? That might’ve been what was holding it up. Because you know, he told ‘em that was a Venetian blind, but he had the rifle in there. But he may have had a little piece of that… you know, a long piece of that Venetian blind in there. That’s what I was thinking. Maybe that’s what it was that was in there, and that’s why it held that up.

Gary: You don’t remember looking inside?

L.D.: (nodding) Oh yeah, I remember looking inside. That’s why I was thinking. I was thinking that I remembered now that there was a piece of that in there. Uh-huh.

Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.

Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.

Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.

Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.

Mr. BALL - About what time of day was that?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - That was 8 o'clock.

David J :

I think we both agree that there’s all kinds of things wrong with “the bag evidence,” but your idea of what is wrong and mine diverge sharply.

First of all, you cannot—or at least should not (in my opinion)-- cite things that are wrong with “the bag as evidence” in the afternoon and then extrapolate back to the morning, and claim that Linnie Mae Randle and Frazier were not valid witnesses in claiming that Oswald brought a package to work on 11/22/63.

I don’t see the logic in that, at all.

Not valid witnesses? On the basis of what?

Sure, the bag looks ridiculous that the two DPD detectives carried out of the building. I agree. But does that mean that Oswald did not carry a bag work that day?

There we part ways.

Also: I think you underestimate the importance of Oswald’s behaving deceptively.

We both agree Oswald did not carry his lunch to work. (So certainly, his "lunch" is not what was in the bag).

You have pointed out that a witness told the HSCA that Oswald said the package contained a venetian blind. Which is obviously false, but maybe he did say that.

Well, here’s another account. There’s a witness I learned of some ten or fifteen years ago who encountered Oswald on a TSBD elevator that morning, and Oswald was carrying a long package.

What’s that? Asked the witness.

A fishing pole, replied Oswald.

So it was “curtain rods,” in the car; later a venetian blind; and a I’m aware of a witness to whom Oswald said: “fishing pole.”

I want to repeat what I said earlier on this threat: you are free to repeatedly assert that Oswald did not carry a bag in the car.

You are free to assert that the authorities simply pressured Randle and Frazier to say what they did.

But there is no good evidence to believe any of that—and repeatedly asserting it does not make it so.

Yet you keep repeatedly asserting it as if it were a fact.

Also, in your latest post, you say: “No reliable corroboration that Oswald even came to the Randle house at all...”

So: Are you now asserting that Frazier didn’t drive Oswald to work on 11/22/63? (If not, please explain).

Let me remind you again of what Linnie Mae Randle said in her 11/22 affidavit:

"I saw Lee walk up my driveway carrying a long brown package. I saw him put it in Wesley's car."

Here is Frazier’s sworn affidavit:

"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2 feet long. I asked Lee what was in the sack and he said "curtain rods" and I remembered what he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods." etc.

No, I don't think these witnesses were pressured into telling a completely fictional account.

There is plenty of evidence that Oswald carried “a package” to work, and he told different things to different people as to what was in the package.

DSL

4/15/13; 6:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited April 16, 2013 by David Lifton

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

There’s a witness I learned of some ten or fifteen years ago who encountered Oswald on a TSBD elevator that morning, and Oswald was carrying a long package.

What’s that? Asked the witness.

A fishing pole, replied Oswald.

[...]

Dear David Lifton,

That's very interesting!

I hope you don't mind my asking how you found this witness?

Thank you,

--Tommy

[Sean Murphy]

Well, here’s another account. There’s a witness I learned of some ten or fifteen years ago who encountered Oswald on a TSBD elevator that morning, and Oswald was carrying a long package.

What’s that? Asked the witness.

A fishing pole, replied Oswald.

Mary Hollies mentioned this to me few years back. If I recall correctly, she claimed to have been in the elevator herself at the time and to have heard the exchange.